| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Richard" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2004 07:25:34 AM |
| Object: |
Does God Exist? |
Does God Exist?
There are three answers to this question:
1) Yes, God does exist - this can be based on belief, evidence or the
combination of the two.
2) I don't know if God exists - this stance is a result of being unsure or
unconvinced about the evidence and having no clear beliefs
3) No, God doesn't exist - this answer involves belief only, as you can
never find evidence that something doesn't exist.
So a person can be unsure as to whether God exists, but never sure He
doesn't exist.
Atheism defined as the belief that God does not exist is nothing more than
that - a belief system. There is no evidence to prove that He does not
exist, and even if there was no evidence to prove that He does exist, that
would still leave a person at number 2 - unsure.
So to profess oneself as an atheist is nothing more than a belief system of
people who feel the need to discredit the existence of a person they claim
does not exist.
Richard
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
19 Dec 2004 08:24:49 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <blpas0ptuatne23eu14atr3acrprlaim9e@4ax.com>, Les
Hellawell lept out of the bushes shouting:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:41:22 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <32gicdF3mglc5U1@individual.net>, Robibnikoff lept
out of the bushes shouting:
"Josef Balluch" <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2cc9dd5b4b6021989957@206.172.150.13...
In a message sent 'round the world, Les Hellawell poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
Why must they have us believing something? This seems to be a common
theme from Christians, ".. but you must believe something" is a
common responce when I tell somebody I am atheist.
This is one thing that puzzles me. Why must I believe something?
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow
range of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to
their own terms.
I remember having a conversation with co-workers where I said that my
husband and I weren't going to raise our daughter with religion. One
piped up, "Well, she has to believe in something!". I said that I was
going to raise her to believe in herself. Amazing enough, that seemed
to satisfy them.
<blink> <blink>
Why? Is it the law?
I once went into hospital for some tests (all negative fortunately) and
some one came along to fill in a form, next of kin and so on.
When she came to the box about religion and asked me to state mine I said
'None'. She was genuinely puzzled and said she couldn't put none, I had to
put something. So I told here that was the only answer I could give and
she should leave the box blank if she could not put none. I think that
seemed to satisfy here.
I'd be tempted to reply "the church of none of your ***** business."
Nosy ***** forms. <snort>
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
19 Dec 2004 08:44:58 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 08:24:49 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <blpas0ptuatne23eu14atr3acrprlaim9e@4ax.com>, Les
Hellawell lept out of the bushes shouting:
I once went into hospital for some tests (all negative fortunately) and
some one came along to fill in a form, next of kin and so on.
When she came to the box about religion and asked me to state mine I said
'None'. She was genuinely puzzled and said she couldn't put none, I had to
put something. So I told here that was the only answer I could give and
she should leave the box blank if she could not put none. I think that
seemed to satisfy here.
I'd be tempted to reply "the church of none of your ***** business."
I've been through that one. in the late 1960s at the Royal National
Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital in Golden Square. I wrote "none" and the
admissions nurse crossed it out, writing CofE - after I had signed the
form. I vocally complained that I was not CofE and she had forged this
over my signature. I tore it up and insisted on a fresh form.
As I walked away I saw her surreptitiously changing it.
I complained, and was told that this was so they knew what chaplain to
send for if something went wrong. I told them that I and my family
would be mortally offended if they sent a CofE chaplain who thought I
was CofE, and that the nurse was being dishonest. Of course nothing
was done about it.
Basically the system couldn't cope.
The same thing happened to my grandfather 50-odd years earlier during
WW1 when he was hospitalised. They put a colour coded enamel disk at
the end of the bed, so that the patients would get a visit from the
"correct" chaplain. He scraped the enamel off it. Every time they
replaced it.
Nosy ***** forms. <snort>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
20 Dec 2004 06:52:27 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <mh4bs0dftd1h8334iscb6lkfgdpemp75kf@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee lept out of the bushes shouting:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 08:24:49 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <blpas0ptuatne23eu14atr3acrprlaim9e@4ax.com>, Les
Hellawell lept out of the bushes shouting:
I once went into hospital for some tests (all negative fortunately) and
some one came along to fill in a form, next of kin and so on.
When she came to the box about religion and asked me to state mine I
said 'None'. She was genuinely puzzled and said she couldn't put none,
I had to put something. So I told here that was the only answer I could
give and she should leave the box blank if she could not put none. I
think that seemed to satisfy here.
I'd be tempted to reply "the church of none of your ***** business."
I've been through that one. in the late 1960s at the Royal National Ear,
Nose and Throat Hospital in Golden Square. I wrote "none" and the
admissions nurse crossed it out, writing CofE - after I had signed the
form. I vocally complained that I was not CofE and she had forged this
over my signature. I tore it up and insisted on a fresh form.
As I walked away I saw her surreptitiously changing it.
I complained, and was told that this was so they knew what chaplain to
send for if something went wrong. I told them that I and my family would
be mortally offended if they sent a CofE chaplain who thought I was CofE,
and that the nurse was being dishonest. Of course nothing was done about
it.
Basically the system couldn't cope.
The same thing happened to my grandfather 50-odd years earlier during WW1
when he was hospitalised. They put a colour coded enamel disk at the end
of the bed, so that the patients would get a visit from the "correct"
chaplain. He scraped the enamel off it. Every time they replaced it.
I'm still marveling at the surreptitious "correction." I mean, as if that
somehow *made you a Christian?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
20 Dec 2004 02:06:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:52:27 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <mh4bs0dftd1h8334iscb6lkfgdpemp75kf@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee lept out of the bushes shouting:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 08:24:49 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <blpas0ptuatne23eu14atr3acrprlaim9e@4ax.com>, Les
Hellawell lept out of the bushes shouting:
I once went into hospital for some tests (all negative fortunately) and
some one came along to fill in a form, next of kin and so on.
When she came to the box about religion and asked me to state mine I
said 'None'. She was genuinely puzzled and said she couldn't put none,
I had to put something. So I told here that was the only answer I could
give and she should leave the box blank if she could not put none. I
think that seemed to satisfy here.
I'd be tempted to reply "the church of none of your ***** business."
I've been through that one. in the late 1960s at the Royal National Ear,
Nose and Throat Hospital in Golden Square. I wrote "none" and the
admissions nurse crossed it out, writing CofE - after I had signed the
form. I vocally complained that I was not CofE and she had forged this
over my signature. I tore it up and insisted on a fresh form.
As I walked away I saw her surreptitiously changing it.
I complained, and was told that this was so they knew what chaplain to
send for if something went wrong. I told them that I and my family would
be mortally offended if they sent a CofE chaplain who thought I was CofE,
and that the nurse was being dishonest. Of course nothing was done about
it.
Basically the system couldn't cope.
The same thing happened to my grandfather 50-odd years earlier during WW1
when he was hospitalised. They put a colour coded enamel disk at the end
of the bed, so that the patients would get a visit from the "correct"
chaplain. He scraped the enamel off it. Every time they replaced it.
I'm still marveling at the surreptitious "correction." I mean, as if that
somehow *made you a Christian?
It made them feel better breaking the Ten Commandments.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 12:04:40 PM |
|
|
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, Les Hellawell poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
Why must they have us believing something? This seems to be
a common theme from Christians, ".. but you must believe something"
is a common responce when I tell somebody I am atheist.
This is one thing that puzzles me. Why must I believe something?
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Denny
Regards,
Josef
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it.
-- Aristotle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 02:01:07 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Josef Balluch wrote:
....
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
So tell us about it, Denny. Which assumptions, specifically?
Oh, and BTW, please provide references. Feel free to copy and paste.
Regards,
Josef
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-
folded fear.
-- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 09:44:40 AM |
|
|
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Josef Balluch wrote:
...
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
So tell us about it, Denny. Which assumptions, specifically?
Oh, and BTW, please provide references. Feel free to copy and paste.
"I don't have time for the pain." (Carol King)
As ever,
Denny
Regards,
Josef
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-
folded fear.
-- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 07:24:43 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Josef Balluch wrote:
...
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
So tell us about it, Denny. Which assumptions, specifically?
Oh, and BTW, please provide references. Feel free to copy and paste.
"I don't have time for the pain." (Carol King)
IOW, it is just an assumption on your part.
Have a nice day, Mr. Kettle.
Regards,
Josef
The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be
taken seriously.
-- Hubert Humphrey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 04:20:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:04:40 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Josef Balluch wrote:
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Failed logic, did we?
---
CellPhonesEtc at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 09:43:17 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:04:40 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Josef Balluch wrote:
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Failed logic, did we?
Speak for yourself.
Denny
---
CellPhonesEtc at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 01:29:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:43:17 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:04:40 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Josef Balluch wrote:
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Failed logic, did we?
Speak for yourself.
Denny Denny Denny. (shakes head) Seventy odd years old and you're
still on the kindergarten playground. What a waste.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 01:26:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:04:40 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, Les Hellawell poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
Why must they have us believing something? This seems to be
a common theme from Christians, ".. but you must believe something"
is a common responce when I tell somebody I am atheist.
This is one thing that puzzles me. Why must I believe something?
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Denny
Regards,
Josef
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it.
-- Aristotle
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 01:45:31 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:04:40 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, Les Hellawell poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
Why must they have us believing something? This seems to be
a common theme from Christians, ".. but you must believe something"
is a common responce when I tell somebody I am atheist.
This is one thing that puzzles me. Why must I believe something?
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
And Denny pipes up with his usual false witness.
Way to go on following that commandment against bearing false witness
you cowardly sack of christian dogshit.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 02:40:32 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:04:40 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, Les Hellawell poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
Why must they have us believing something? This seems to be
a common theme from Christians, ".. but you must believe something"
is a common responce when I tell somebody I am atheist.
This is one thing that puzzles me. Why must I believe something?
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
So you are analogous to a black kettle then?
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 09:42:08 AM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:04:40 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, Les Hellawell poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
Why must they have us believing something? This seems to be
a common theme from Christians, ".. but you must believe something"
is a common responce when I tell somebody I am atheist.
This is one thing that puzzles me. Why must I believe something?
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
So you are analogous to a black kettle then?
All metaphors break down when pressed too far.
Denny
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 03:39:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:42:08 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:04:40 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, Les Hellawell poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
Why must they have us believing something? This seems to be
a common theme from Christians, ".. but you must believe something"
is a common responce when I tell somebody I am atheist.
This is one thing that puzzles me. Why must I believe something?
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
So you are analogous to a black kettle then?
All metaphors break down when pressed too far.
Metaphors start broken! I prefer not to use them as they
demonstrate nothing. Pots and kettles have nothing to
do with anything but out of date cookery.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 12:41:01 PM |
|
|
on 17 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, Les Hellawell poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
Why must they have us believing something? This seems to be
a common theme from Christians, ".. but you must believe something"
is a common responce when I tell somebody I am atheist.
This is one thing that puzzles me. Why must I believe something?
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Why? It's true. Look at the parent post. The man assumes his conclusion.
He takes it for granted that his "god" exists, and works from there. He
cannot imagine a world outside of his religion.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 02:06:47 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 17 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, Les Hellawell poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
Why must they have us believing something? This seems to be
a common theme from Christians, ".. but you must believe something"
is a common responce when I tell somebody I am atheist.
This is one thing that puzzles me. Why must I believe something?
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Why? It's true. Look at the parent post. The man assumes his conclusion.
He takes it for granted that his "god" exists, and works from there. He
cannot imagine a world outside of his religion.
Just change the opening word to: "Atheists" have difficulty understanding
outside of their own narrow range of assumptions, so they must first re-define
things according to their own terms.
Denny--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 05:49:42 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:06:47 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 17 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, Les Hellawell poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
Why must they have us believing something? This seems to be
a common theme from Christians, ".. but you must believe something"
is a common responce when I tell somebody I am atheist.
This is one thing that puzzles me. Why must I believe something?
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Why? It's true. Look at the parent post. The man assumes his conclusion.
He takes it for granted that his "god" exists, and works from there. He
cannot imagine a world outside of his religion.
Just change the opening word to: "Atheists" have difficulty understanding
outside of their own narrow range of assumptions, so they must first re-define
things according to their own terms.
I do not assume that I have never seen objective evidence for any god.
The assumptions are made by the believer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 04:28:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:06:47 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 17 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, Les Hellawell poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
Why must they have us believing something? This seems to be
a common theme from Christians, ".. but you must believe something"
is a common responce when I tell somebody I am atheist.
This is one thing that puzzles me. Why must I believe something?
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Why? It's true. Look at the parent post. The man assumes his conclusion.
He takes it for granted that his "god" exists, and works from there. He
cannot imagine a world outside of his religion.
Just change the opening word to: "Atheists" have difficulty understanding
outside of their own narrow range of assumptions, so they must first re-define
things according to their own terms.
Such as?
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 01:27:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:06:47 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 17 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, Les Hellawell poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
...
Why must they have us believing something? This seems to be
a common theme from Christians, ".. but you must believe something"
is a common responce when I tell somebody I am atheist.
This is one thing that puzzles me. Why must I believe something?
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow range
of assumptions, so they must first re-define things according to their
own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Why? It's true. Look at the parent post. The man assumes his conclusion.
He takes it for granted that his "god" exists, and works from there. He
cannot imagine a world outside of his religion.
Just change the opening word to: "Atheists" have difficulty understanding
outside of their own narrow range of assumptions, so they must first re-define
things according to their own terms.
Which is a common bearing of false witness by you, Denny.
So much for those Ten "Commandments."
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 04:20:49 PM |
|
|
on 17 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow
range of assumptions, so they must first re-define things
according to their own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Why? It's true. Look at the parent post. The man assumes his
conclusion. He takes it for granted that his "god" exists, and works
from there. He cannot imagine a world outside of his religion.
Just change the opening word to: "Atheists" have difficulty
understanding outside of their own narrow range of assumptions, so
they must first re-define things according to their own terms.
Cite please.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 09:52:35 AM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 17 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow
range of assumptions, so they must first re-define things
according to their own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Why? It's true. Look at the parent post. The man assumes his
conclusion. He takes it for granted that his "god" exists, and works
from there. He cannot imagine a world outside of his religion.
Just change the opening word to: "Atheists" have difficulty
understanding outside of their own narrow range of assumptions, so
they must first re-define things according to their own terms.
Cite please.
Cold, hard and anticeptic facts alone are worthy of consideration.
Intuition as a source of knowledge is ruled out.
Science is the sacred cow. All things must bow down before it.
Anything that can't be examined scientifically can't possibly exist.
Denny
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
20 Dec 2004 12:31:36 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
....
Cite please.
Cold, hard and anticeptic facts alone are worthy of consideration.
Intuition as a source of knowledge is ruled out.
Science is the sacred cow. All things must bow down before it.
Anything that can't be examined scientifically can't possibly exist.
Very ironic indeed, considering your request in another thread that I
provide you with evidence. And more ironic since the statement above and
your request for evidence were posted only five minutes apart.
You are quite the hypocrite.
Regards,
Josef
Christ rode on an *****, but now asses ride on Christ.
-- Heinrich Heine
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
21 Dec 2004 02:02:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:31:36 -0500, Josef Balluch
<josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
Cite please.
Cold, hard and anticeptic facts alone are worthy of consideration.
Intuition as a source of knowledge is ruled out.
Science is the sacred cow. All things must bow down before it.
Anything that can't be examined scientifically can't possibly exist.
Very ironic indeed, considering your request in another thread that I
provide you with evidence. And more ironic since the statement above and
your request for evidence were posted only five minutes apart.
You are quite the hypocrite.
That's been demonstrated quite often for years.
Regards,
Josef
Christ rode on an *****, but now asses ride on Christ.
-- Heinrich Heine
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 11:32:47 AM |
|
|
On 18 Dec 2004, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 17 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own
narrow range of assumptions, so they must first re-define
things according to their own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Why? It's true. Look at the parent post. The man assumes his
conclusion. He takes it for granted that his "god" exists, and
works from there. He cannot imagine a world outside of his
religion.
Just change the opening word to: "Atheists" have difficulty
understanding outside of their own narrow range of assumptions, so
they must first re-define things according to their own terms.
Cite please.
Cold, hard and anticeptic facts alone are worthy of consideration.
Intuition as a source of knowledge is ruled out.
Science is the sacred cow. All things must bow down before it.
Anything that can't be examined scientifically can't possibly exist.
What words do we, as atheists, re-define?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
--------
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
19 Dec 2004 08:24:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:52:35 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 17 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow
range of assumptions, so they must first re-define things
according to their own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Why? It's true. Look at the parent post. The man assumes his
conclusion. He takes it for granted that his "god" exists, and works
from there. He cannot imagine a world outside of his religion.
Just change the opening word to: "Atheists" have difficulty
understanding outside of their own narrow range of assumptions, so
they must first re-define things according to their own terms.
Cite please.
Cold, hard and anticeptic facts alone are worthy of consideration.
Intuition as a source of knowledge is ruled out.
Science is the sacred cow. All things must bow down before it.
Anything that can't be examined scientifically can't possibly exist.
/me pisses on the lying sack of senile christian dogshit.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 04:29:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:52:35 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 17 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow
range of assumptions, so they must first re-define things
according to their own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Why? It's true. Look at the parent post. The man assumes his
conclusion. He takes it for granted that his "god" exists, and works
from there. He cannot imagine a world outside of his religion.
Just change the opening word to: "Atheists" have difficulty
understanding outside of their own narrow range of assumptions, so
they must first re-define things according to their own terms.
Cite please.
Cold, hard and anticeptic facts alone are worthy of consideration.
Intuition as a source of knowledge is ruled out.
Science is the sacred cow. All things must bow down before it.
Anything that can't be examined scientifically can't possibly exist.
Uh?
So gravity, according to your strange definition of scientific
principles cannot exist?
Science has never argued any such thing. Science has nothing
to say about things it cannot observe. You cannot theorise
about nothing you need some evidence to work on!
That is why science has nothing to say about gods because
science has found nothing concerning gods to observe in
centuries of observance. (this is not to say science has looked
for god just that nothing that suggests a god has appeared.)
Science would probably look if it knew where to look.
(Such as a scientific study of the power or lack of power
of prayer)
As I know nothing about gods I having nothing to say about
them. I do not know if they exist I dont know if they
don't exists and not knowing even if they exist I cannot
possibly know anything about their properties. Being the
honest person I like to think I am I admit this ignorance and
leave it at that.
You on the other hand are not honest you try to hide your
ingorance by pretending there is a god and invent properties
to suit what you imagine your god to be. You are in short
a theist.
Come on stand up, swallow hard, think of England
(or your country) drop your false beliefs and stand there with
your ignorance exposed and admit you also know nothing
about gods. We will stand beside you and give you comfort
and support and you will feel much better free of your
unecessary encumbances. Free your mind, you know it is the
right thing to do.
You are an intelligent person with a sharp and incisive
wit so why shackle and limit your mind with belief in
someting you cannot possibly know and may not even
exists? Why follow a book written thousands of years ago
with all kinds of unsubstantiated claims of gods and
inconsistences badly translated and rewritten. As an intelligent
person you aught to use that intelligence and at least question its
veracity and not accept it blindly like a fool.
There is no need to accept the Bible uncritically even if
you are certain there is a god The Bible was written by
people and people make mistakes, lie, distort, misunderstand,
you must know this so why treat the Bible as perfect? Or
do you read everything including the newspapers
uncritically? If it is written it must be true?
Ask yourself where did Genesis come from. Was Moses
telling the truth when he said god talked to him alone. Was
Bin Laden telling the truth when he said god talked to him.
Did the Romans really leave Jesus on the cross only
a few days when fit men can taken longer than that to
die on the cross? We know that Roman practise was to
leave them up there to rot as examples to others but I
guess Roman solidiers can be bribed. So was he really
dead when brought down? Can you honestly say that
you accept this story of him saving mankind from his
father?
There are many such questions that an intelligent person
aught to ask before accepting the Bible as your
whole lifes philosophy. Does god really exist and how
do you know? Is the god of the Bible this same god
or some fiction? This surely is the correct and intelligent
approach to take yes?
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
02 Jan 2005 11:25:26 AM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:52:35 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 17 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dgillesp dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Theists have difficulty understanding outside of their own narrow
range of assumptions, so they must first re-define things
according to their own terms.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Why? It's true. Look at the parent post. The man assumes his
conclusion. He takes it for granted that his "god" exists, and works
from there. He cannot imagine a world outside of his religion.
Just change the opening word to: "Atheists" have difficulty
understanding outside of their own narrow range of assumptions, so
they must first re-define things according to their own terms.
Cite please.
Cold, hard and anticeptic facts alone are worthy of consideration.
Intuition as a source of knowledge is ruled out.
Science is the sacred cow. All things must bow down before it.
Anything that can't be examined scientifically can't possibly exist.
Uh?
So gravity, according to your strange definition of scientific
principles cannot exist?
We must have a break in communication here. Gravity, radio waves exist as
science has determined so because their effects are hard evidence.
Science has never argued any such thing. Science has nothing
to say about things it cannot observe. You cannot theorise
about nothing you need some evidence to work on!
That is why science has nothing to say about gods because
science has found nothing concerning gods to observe in
centuries of observance. (this is not to say science has looked
for god just that nothing that suggests a god has appeared.)
Science would probably look if it knew where to look.
(Such as a scientific study of the power or lack of power
of prayer)
As I know nothing about gods I having nothing to say about
them. I do not know if they exist I dont know if they
don't exists and not knowing even if they exist I cannot
possibly know anything about their properties. Being the
honest person I like to think I am I admit this ignorance and
leave it at that.
You on the other hand are not honest you try to hide your
ingorance by pretending there is a god and invent properties
to suit what you imagine your god to be.
Not true. The properties of God are those that have been revealed by Him to
the ecumenical Church of Christ and other religions as well when and where
they concur with the teachings of the Church.
You are in short a theist.
Correct, but a Christian theist to be more exact.
Come on stand up, swallow hard, think of England
(or your country) drop your false beliefs and stand there with
your ignorance exposed and admit you also know nothing
about gods.
To know a God is a dimension of experience other than simply knowing something
or even noting "about" God. Paul writes, "I am not ashamed, for I know whom I
have believed, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has
been entrusted to me." 2 Tim 1.12 Same here.
We will stand beside you and give you comfort
and support and you will feel much better free of your
unecessary encumbances.
I prefer not to be a slave to the notions and values of a godless void, or to
my own untoward inclinations, for that matter. Your notion of freedom is for
me a life of bondage. I've tried it both ways, and believe me, I left many
unncecessary encumbrances behind with a personal encounter with God as
revealed in Christ. As I see it, you are asking me to take back the shackles
that made my life miserable.
Free your mind, you know it is the
right thing to do.
I do not park my mind at the door when I enter church on a Sunday.
You are an intelligent person with a sharp and incisive
wit so why shackle and limit your mind with belief in
someting you cannot possibly know and may not even
exists?
Thank you for your astute observation. <g> Unlike you I find that life makes
much more sense in the light of a personal knowledge of the ultimate Source of
all life, though that Source cannot be examined scientifically or be
rationally proved.
Why follow a book written thousands of years ago
with all kinds of unsubstantiated claims of gods and
inconsistences badly translated and rewritten. As an intelligent
person you aught to use that intelligence and at least question its
veracity and not accept it blindly like a fool.
I take great care not to throw out the baby with the bath water, but sometimes
the water is very murky and nasty, I agree.
There is no need to accept the Bible uncritically even if
you are certain there is a god The Bible was written by
people and people make mistakes, lie, distort, misunderstand,
you must know this so why treat the Bible as perfect?
I do not treat the Bible as though it were printed up in heaven or manila
paper, bound in genuine leather, and handed down on a silver platter.
It was written by men who were limited in knowledge and often misunderstood
what they experienced. Christianity doesn't stand or fall with a perfect,
infallible book. It stands or falls with the final revelation of Who and What
God is like in the person, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. A
cousin of mine said he wouldn't believe anything in the Bible if he couldn't
believe everything in it, which means his faith is totally misplaced from a
Christian point of view.
Or
do you read everything including the newspapers
uncritically? If it is written it must be true?
Ask yourself where did Genesis come from. Was Moses
telling the truth when he said god talked to him alone.
Moses didn't write anything in the Bible. It was oral tradition written down
much later and attributed to Moses.
Was
Bin Laden telling the truth when he said god talked to him.
If so, he obviously got the wrong message. It doesn't agree with what Christ
taught and exemplified.
Did the Romans really leave Jesus on the cross only
a few days when fit men can taken longer than that to
die on the cross?
It wasn't a matter of the time spent in suffering, but Who was suffering and
for what purpose.
We know that Roman practise was to
leave them up there to rot as examples to others but I
guess Roman solidiers can be bribed. So was he really
dead when brought down? Can you honestly say that
you accept this story of him saving mankind from his
father?
Yes, he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and buried. No, he
did not save mankind ** from** his father. He saved mankind **for** his
Father. "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself
and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ **God was
reconciling the world to himself,** not counting their trespasses against
them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." 2 Cor 5.18-19 It
wasn't that God had to be reconciled to the world, but the world has to be
reconciled to God. That's the crux of the message.
There are many such questions that an intelligent person
aught to ask before accepting the Bible as your
whole lifes philosophy.
Most of these I have asked already. But there are always new discoveries that
one must come to terms with.
Does god really exist and how
do you know? Is the god of the Bible this same god
or some fiction? This surely is the correct and intelligent
approach to take yes?
The crucial difference is whether you carry on your approach from either the
inside or the outside of faith. Bias is unavoidable either way, and will
effect the outcome of your questioning, of course.
Denny (Methodios)
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
02 Jan 2005 03:16:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 12:25:26 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Les Hellawell wrote:
So gravity, according to your strange definition of scientific
principles cannot exist?
We must have a break in communication here. Gravity, radio waves exist as
science has determined so because their effects are hard evidence.
Sorry, Denny - we're still searching to see if there are gravity
waves. We know the effect, we don't know the cause. We used to think
we did, but now we know that we may be wrong.
You on the other hand are not honest you try to hide your
ingorance by pretending there is a god and invent properties
to suit what you imagine your god to be.
Not true. The properties of God are those that have been revealed by Him
There you go, proving Les' claim. You're assuming your god exists as
proof that it exists.
You are in short a theist.
Correct, but a Christian theist to be more exact.
Not much difference, except that some gods can exist but yours can't.
It's been defined - by Christianity - so as to be impossible. (For
only one example, a god that 'exists' outside of time can't 'create'
time, yet Christianity claims that this is exactly the case.)
Come on stand up, swallow hard, think of England
(or your country) drop your false beliefs and stand there with
your ignorance exposed and admit you also know nothing
about gods.
To know a God is a dimension of experience other than simply knowing something
or even noting "about" God.
But you can't "know" a god (small 'g' after the indefinite article)
that doesn't actually exist, and yours can't.
Paul writes, "I am not ashamed, for I know whom I
have believed, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has
been entrusted to me." 2 Tim 1.12 Same here.
Do you also believe that 4 out of 5 doctors recommend Brand X? Your
bible is advertising to sell a product, Denny, not "revealed Truth".
I prefer not to be a slave to the notions and values of a godless void
Talk about irony.
Your notion of freedom is for
me a life of bondage. I've tried it both ways
I doubt that. You, like most people, were probably raised a theist.
A cousin of mine said he wouldn't believe anything in the Bible if he couldn't
believe everything in it, which means his faith is totally misplaced from a
Christian point of view.
Not according to Christianity.
Or
do you read everything including the newspapers
uncritically? If it is written it must be true?
Ask yourself where did Genesis come from. Was Moses
telling the truth when he said god talked to him alone.
Moses didn't write anything in the Bible. It was oral tradition written down
much later and attributed to Moses.
Not according to Judaism.
Was
Bin Laden telling the truth when he said god talked to him.
If so, he obviously got the wrong message. It doesn't agree with what Christ
taught and exemplified.
Maybe Christ got the wrong message.
Did the Romans really leave Jesus on the cross only
a few days when fit men can taken longer than that to
die on the cross?
It wasn't a matter of the time spent in suffering, but Who was suffering and
for what purpose.
It *IS* a matter of time, since the Romans used crucifixion victims as
object lessons. They left them up until the bones fell of their own
accord. Crucifixion victims weren't cut down.
We know that Roman practise was to
leave them up there to rot as examples to others but I
guess Roman solidiers can be bribed. So was he really
dead when brought down? Can you honestly say that
you accept this story of him saving mankind from his
father?
Yes, he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and buried. No, he
did not save mankind ** from** his father. He saved mankind **for** his
Father.
But he WAS his father according to Christianity. So he saved us
from/for himself by dying so that he could forgive us for doing
exactly what he knew we'd do before he created us. And you believe
this, and you believe that an omnipotent omniscient creator god could
think of no better way to run a universe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
